Seymour and Phyllis C. Bronson - Page 21




                                       - 21 -                                         
          warned of the relevant risks in the private placement memorandum.           
          Christensen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-185; Robnett v.                
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-17.                                           
               The private placement memorandum contained numerous warnings           
          regarding the tax risks involved with making an investment in               
          Arid Land.  Although the parties stipulated that petitioners all            
          received a copy of the private placement memorandum, for the most           
          part petitioners could not recall having seen and/or having                 
          reviewed the memorandum prior to making an investment.  In any              
          case, the warnings were there and would have been evident if                
          petitioners had exercised reasonable care and read the                      
          memorandum.  After making their investments regardless of these             
          risks, petitioners claimed large losses despite the fact that               
          they had only recently invested cash in amounts far less than the           
          amounts of the losses:7  The Bronsons paid $7,700 and claimed a             
          loss of $17,369 (43.3 percent of their income); the Gordon-Wylies           
          paid $6,600 and claimed a loss of $14,888 (24.5 percent of their            
          income); and the Garritys paid $5,500 and claimed a loss of                 

          7Petitioners argue that the instructions for Schedules K-1                  
          provided by the Internal Revenue Service required them to report            
          the loss.  The instructions state that the individual taxpayer              
          “must treat partnership items * * * consistent with the way the             
          partnership treated the items on its filed return.”  The                    
          instructions have further provisions dealing with errors on                 
          Schedules K-1 as well as with the filing of statements to explain           
          inconsistencies between the partnership’s return and the                    
          taxpayer’s return.  We find to be unreasonable any belief by                
          petitioners or their return preparers that they were required by            
          law to mechanically deduct a loss which was improper.                       





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011